SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[biggerhigherfaster]

Much of the Eastern part of the city -- Mission Bay down to just south of Candlestick -- is basically empty land, abandoned buildings, landfill, giant parking lots, or warehouses. There are also a lot of blighted neighborhoods. I think by land-area, this is nearly 1/4 of the city. If that 1/4 is developed at the density of SOMA right now, that's easily another 200k units of housing.

[pseudolus]

Originally Posted by tech12

Uh...not really.

He's right. There's not a bit of difference between the Outer Sunset, Park Merced, Saint Francis Wood, Bernal Heights, Glen Park, Forest Hill, Ingleside, Sea Cliff. Who could ever tell them apart?

[mt_climber13]

It might look like the San Fernando Valley or San Mateo from the air, but this is actually what a majority of SF looks like. Very low density structures. And this is only a small part of it. Anybody can look up satellite view on Google maps, scroll around, and see for yourselves if you don't believe me.








Compare this to the outskirts of Paris:





SF is by no means a Paris and has a planning and transportation style (car and garage centric) more similar to Los Angeles (this should not be a surprise, since both cities are in the same state and have similar ages, LA a little younger, but both babies compared to Paris), although many in SF would hate to admit it.

And ise of you who just tuned in, I am bringing up the Paris comparisons in response to the poster who brought this up yesterday.

[simms3_redux]

^^^Paris is no doubt one of the top 3 most world class cities, in the same league as New York and London. It's a good example in many ways for cities like SF, Sydney, or even other European/American cities to strive to learn from and take away the best and most applicable planning ideas, however, at the street, much of what you just showed of the outskirts of Paris (which by the way also include lower density areas you selectively chose not to picture) are not very warm, inviting, or friendly.

Density may be different (and really not that different), and structural development and layout may be different (obviously very different), but both many of the outskirts of Paris and the outskirts of San Francisco have serious room for improvement.

Also keep in mind, like New York, Paris is about 10x the size of San Francisco. The Sunset would not necessarily be "outskirts" of San Francisco if it were the size of Paris. Your pictures are hard to tell if they were taken from inside Paris' 40 sq mi city limits or from somewhere in the inner 1,000 sq mi that houses 10 million of metro Paris's residents. Either way, most cities in America, even some cities in the NE, would kill to have the density, layout, existing structural development, and the capacity to add more density effectively and efficiently, that San Francisco's "outskirts" currently already have. Yet as you and everyone agrees, here in SF for our standards and our desires, there is certainly plenty of room for improvement, aesthetically, and obviously the ability (not necessarily "room") for increased density.

Generally I agree with you on how to go about it, though I think there's a better way to put it. San Francisco is one of the most attractive cities overall (and even the "color" and sometimes subtle design touches of the apartment buildings and row houses in SF's "ugliest" areas are unique and fairly attractive as far as middle class urban neighborhoods go), even including the Sunset and Bayview and Visitacion Valley, where houses are occupied and generally maintained very well relative to peer neighborhoods surrounding peer cities such as Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago (SS, Westside), and others. The product of a very wealthy, generally fully gentrified city. Yes there is room for more density and improvements to aesthetics, but have you BEEN to the outskirts of Paris? Aesthetically not really an improvement over the outskirts of SF or most cities worldwide. The only thing that makes them "better" per se is possibly the increased density (and your selected pictures are not *that* much denser than SF's areas) and the rail access, which imho blows even metro NYC's out of the water. No American city will ever compete with the quality of Paris' rail infrastructure, imo.

[fimiak]

Comparing SF and Paris does not make sense and shouldn't be done. They are completely different, in age, feel, architecture, and size. Natural characteristics like the river Seine and SF's peninsula shape make for totally different moods. The short neighborhoods of west and south SF are not the same as the slums on the outskirts of Paris, Paris has something like 10 million people and refugees and immigrants from all over North Africa and Eastern Europe. There are only a few streets in SF I could call Parisian-style and those are in the North Beach-area. Nearly everything else resembles other cities far more so than Paris.

The problem with SF is that home prices have been allowed to grow for so long that developers cannot afford to buy the property needed. It's also a problem that much of the silicon valley wealth is distributed all over the peninsula, rather than concentrated in the city like it would be in Paris. Concentrated wealth brings about those Parisian institutions like int'l fashion houses and grand parks and museums and hotels.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Yes, that is most of SF. Land Area wise.

But not in terms of population, and the areas of the city full of those types of homes you you dislike, do not fill up everything that you circled on the map...like, not at all. It's not even close. Yet you claimed "most" of SF looked like that. That's what I meant when I said it's not most of the city, sorry if I was unclear.

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

I'm not saying raze the entire area by eminent domain. I'm saying up zone the area and allow developers to buy out home owners for redevelopment. Free market. Most people will gladly sell out. Those that don't will likely be the elderly. totally fine. Let them stay for the rest of their lives, don't force anybody out. Once they pass on, the children or grandchildren would not pass up the opportunity to sell out. Within 50 years I would bet almost every homeowner in the area would sell their house for the right price.

Ok, that makes a lot more sense.

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Really, nothing would be missed.

This is where you're wrong though. It seems that you're projecting your own opinion on everyone else. Of course people will miss it...and others won't.

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

even including the Sunset and Bayview and Visitacion Valley, where houses are occupied and generally maintained very well relative to peer neighborhoods surrounding peer cities such as Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago (SS, Westside), and others. The product of a very wealthy, generally fully gentrified city.

I don't think I would call SF a fully gentrified city. You just named three neighborhoods that are currently pretty low on the gentrification scale...there are a lot of poor people in SF.

[simms3_redux]

^^^It's all relative. Aside from the worst of Bayview/Hunters Point and now a remaining small snippet of the TL, most of what is "bad" or "poor" in SF is in a heck of a lot better shape than what you'd find as "bad" or "poor", or in some cases, even "middle class" in other cities. I do believe you stated that you had lived in SF your whole life. I'm not claiming you haven't traveled and seen other cities and their bad parts, but I would imagine for the most part you don't really have the perspective of having lived in another city and having seen/taken in its bad parts. SF is not gentrified in the sense that every block is filled with millionaires, but overall, the city is by far one of the most absolutely gentrified in the country. There are whole sections of other cities larger in land area than all of SF as run down as the worst 3 contiguous block you're going to find in SF (outside of TL, which itself is also a mixed bag of gentrification and poverty at this point).


Anywhooooo....SF does have some characteristics that Paris has, and it does remind people of an American version. Streetside/corner cafes, a nice amount of random beaux arts architecture or European looking churches, a foodie/wine snob culture, similar weather frankly, those street markers that were literally copied from Paris, NIMBYs from hell and a deep intent on preservation and quelled change, old world charm, etc etc.

I hope as SF continues to develop, especially vertically and in a more modern fashion, these little things are not lost in the mix.

[fflint]

The claim 2-story Doelgers cover a majority of San Francisco's landscape is not obviously true. Meanwhile, the "25 square mile" comparisons of American downtowns and adjacent neighborhoods we did some years ago revealed about 70% of San Franciscans live in the northern and eastern parts of the city. Thousands of units have come online since then, relatively few of them in the western or southern areas. Which is to say, regardless of whatever percentage of land area is covered only by Doelger rowhouses, most San Franciscans do not live in such neighborhoods. And never will.

Now, let's get back on topic.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

^^^It's all relative. Aside from the worst of Bayview/Hunters Point and now a remaining small snippet of the TL, most of what is "bad" or "poor" in SF is in a heck of a lot better shape than what you'd find as "bad" or "poor", or in some cases, even "middle class" in other cities. I do believe you stated that you had lived in SF your whole life. I'm not claiming you haven't traveled and seen other cities and their bad parts, but I would imagine for the most part you don't really have the perspective of having lived in another city and having seen/taken in its bad parts. SF is not gentrified in the sense that every block is filled with millionaires, but overall, the city is by far one of the most absolutely gentrified in the country.

Yes, I was born here and have lived here my whole life (minus several months), but I've been to plenty of other cities, including bad areas in places such as Oakland, LA and Philadelphia. I've been to Mexico and seen poverty there too. I'm even pretty poor myself and know multiple people who have been murdered in SF! In addition to that I've done a ton of studying of US crime statistics from the past 30-40 years not to mention census statistics. So I know what's going on in other places, and I take issue with you claiming that almost none of SF's bad/poor parts are actually bad/poor. You're saying the tenderloin compares favorably to other bad neighborhoods for the most part, yet the Tenderloin is easily one of the roughest downtown neighborhoods in America with enough open drug use and sales to impress anyone, and no shortage of violent or property crime....I think you might have some rose colored glasses on.

Taking everything I've experienced and read, and heard from others into account, it's very clear to me that SF has this reputation among many people of being a lot more wealthy and a lot safer than it really is. Why would people think otherwise? Visitors and transplants who aren't immigrants mostly stay away from SF's poor/bad areas, and have little to no knowledge of them or even their existence. Besides, Oakland is supposed to be the poor and/or scary one right? SF has always been famous for it's tourists, natural beauty, gay population, hippies, big companies, nice bridges, expensive homes, etc...not for it's ghettos or it's poor people (the homeless excepted), or its crime, but you might be surprised. 100,000 SF residents live below the federal poverty line, and another 100,000 are just above it. Did you know that in 2008 SF had a higher violent crime rate than 70% of US cities with over 250k residents? And a robbery rate higher than 80% of them? It's not all yuppies and sunshine here, no matter how many of the houses in SF's poorer areas are in good condition.

Of course this all has been getting less true by the year with gentrification, as you can see by the insane rents and the large sustained drop in the murder rate since 2009. I'll probably agree with you soon enough the way things are going.

There are whole sections of other cities larger in land area than all of SF as run down as the worst 3 contiguous block you're going to find in SF (outside of TL, which itself is also a mixed bag of gentrification and poverty at this point).

There are 46.7 square miles of this in another US city? Neither are in hunters point/the bayview or the tenderloin, by the way:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7552598,...3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKzOVFSIMh6gI-rCY6eyxyg!2e0
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7106811,...3m4!1e1!3m2!1svq4FHkokV3jH8L2eDJsFpw!2e0

[mt_climber13]

My point which appears to be lost on some was that.. yes, I know most people live in the north east quadrant of the city. I never said they didn't But most of the land mass of SF is single story and 2 story structures, single family and duplexes (with illegal in- law unit conversions). That is why these areas are the best for densification- And when that happens, then a majority of the city wouldn't have to be crammed into a small snippet of the city, but they could also be crammed into the entire 49 square miles

And on this note, why is the entirety of Daly City one and two stories? Imagine Daly City building towers along BART lines. Lots of possibilities, but, perhaps the weather is the big drawback. I think there is a ton of opportunity for "affordable" housing in south, west SF and Daly City.

Oh yeah, and today was finally the groundbreaking of high speed rail. Very exciting, and I hope Elon Musk's hyper loop idea is brought to life and built as well. The traffic conditions in California are a nightmare, everybody wants to be here and California is home to 1 in 8 Americans. We need more infrastructure!!

[NOPA]

Good article about development in Corona Heights. Of course NIMBYS are trying to stop all of it. I'm sorry but I don't feel sorry for the plight of the million dollar cottage owners http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/De...scend-on-S-F-s-5995457.php#photo-7350971

[1977]

The design for the new Mexican Museum was changed - Looks like it'll break ground in July with 706 Mission by Handel Architects

“I knew it was going to happen eventually,” says Rodriguez, who hopes to attend the groundbreaking in July of the 54,000-square-foot, $43 million Mexican Museum at Jessie Square, designed by another major Mexican architect, Enrique Norten.
It will occupy the first four floors of a 43-story condo tower at 706 Mission St. being developed by Millennium Partners and designed by Glenn Rescalvo of the local Handel Architects. The project includes the renovation and integration of the 1903 Aronson Building at Third and Mission streets, a 10-story Chicago-style brick beauty whose lower four floors will also be given over to the Mexican Museum.

Source/Article






Some more info/renderings at TEN Arquitectos.



Also, a nice photo essay by SFHog of a lot of the current projects in and around the Transbay Terminal - http://www.sfhog.com/photo-essay-soma-construction/

[pseudolus]

That girl in the lavender high heels better show up or there'll be a lot of complaints about the real thing not living up to the renders.

[hruski]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

That girl in the lavender high heels better show up or there'll be a lot of complaints about the real thing not living up to the renders.

She's taken. Check the other pictures.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Today I passed by 350 Eighth Street. Note the concrete trucks lined up on 8th Street.

On new year eve I spent the evening at One Rincon. Because of Rincon II the view of fireworks is no longer available.

350 Eighth Street

[a very long weekend]

a somewhat surprising proposal in my hood, 1200 van ness. a shame i'll lose my local 24h fitness outlet there.

includes commercial, retail and office space in the four-level podium and residential units rising eight stories above in a more slender tower, along with 5 levels (jesus!) of underground parking.



http://news.theregistrysf.com/woods-bagot-unveils-design-for-1200-van-ness-in-san-francisco/

edit: curbed has added a couple more renderings.


and some detail


if that rendering is accurate, it looks like it goes all the way to polk street, including the 1101 polk building, which i'm guessing will absolutely no be allowed by the neighbors or planning. weird because woods bagot is here in sf and they should know what'll pass in the area. not just that but the tower will likely need to be shifted to the center of the block and off polk, where the shadowing of 12-16 stories would just create an uproar. then again, it could be that this is just a deceptive rendering.

[fimiak]

Well it looks great...I have no idea why they are only building 4-8 floors on a street like Van Ness, but I do like the design.

Inside scoop: The Market on Market, the new grocery store in the twitter building, seems to be opening Jan 19. I do not know if this includes the smaller shops inside, like Blue Bottle and Farmgirl Flowers. http://www.visitthemarket.com/.

[a very long weekend]

proximity to the adjacent residential tower. still, i'm very doubtful that they'll end up being allowed to demolish the 1115 polk building and build over polk like that. projected start is 2017 so they have time to modify the design but, you know, this is going to freak people out and i can't really imagine a supervisor standing up for what would be by far the tallest building on middle polk. they're smart not to have rendered the polk street frontage.

edit: i'm not sure if this is right but i'm not seeing the preliminary project assessment application for 1115 polk on the property info map, so maybe it's not part of the assemblage. hm. odd given the rendering. i guess we'll know more when socketsite gets to posting it.

all told, it's pretty great. on that corridor between polk and van ness, we have towers proposed on pine, bush and now post. even if the consultants behind this one badly miscalculate on how polk fits into the franklin/van ness medical services corridor, something should still come up there.

[AndrewK]

I really don't see this project going through. I mean why demolish a very nice 4 story (in height) building to replace with another, when only a small portion of the lot will be high rise? It would make more sense to gut and revitalize the current building and raze the mid block annex on post to replace with a tower with underground parking.

Van ness definitely needs fewer big box stores, but I don't think a scorched earth policy is necessary to achieve it.

[AndrewK]

While Van Ness proper does have its fair share of underutilized lots, it is really the blocks between Van Ness and Polk, and to a lesser extent Polk and Larkin, especially closer to civic center, that have the most potential for increased heights and density.